Ex Parte Hatambeiki et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2016

13758307 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/758,307 02/04/2013 Arsham Hatambeiki 81230.163US1 1000
34018 7590 12/02/2016
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
77 WEST WACKER DRIVE
SUITE 3100
CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732
EXAMINER
HICKS, CHARLES N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
j arosikg @ gtlaw .com
chiipmail @ gtlaw .com
escobedot@gtlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARSHAM HATAMBEIKI and PAUL D. ARLING
Appeal 2016-000206
Application 13/758,307
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-000206
Application 13/758,307
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Non-Final
Rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 7—9, and 22—28, which are all of the pending
claims.2 3We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to “[sjensing interfaces associated with a
home entertainment system . . . used to automate a system response to events
which occur in a viewing area associated with the home entertainment
system.” (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary:
1. A method for controlling at least one component device in a
home entertainment system comprised of a plurality of compo­
nent devices, comprising:
receiving first event data via at least one of an image sensing
interface and a sound sensing interface;
determining if the received first event data is indicative of a
preparatory event; and
when the received first event data is determined to be indica­
tive of a preparatory event causing an anticipatory action to be
executed by at least one of the plurality of component devices in
the home entertainment system to transition the at least one of
the plurality of component devices in the home entertainment
system from a first state to a second state in which the at least
1 Appellants identify Universal Electronics Inc. as the real party in interest.
(See App. Br. 2.)
2 Claim 10 is allowed, claim 11 is objected to because it was not cancelled or
included in the latest set of claims, and the Section 103(a) rejection of claim
3 has been withdrawn. (See Ans. 11.)
2
Appeal 2016-000206
Application 13/758,307
one of the plurality of component devices in the home entertain­
ment system is readied to respond to an anticipated event wherein
the anticipated event for which the at least one of the plurality of
component devices in the home entertainment system is readied
is an anticipated change in a number of viewers in a viewing area
associated with the home entertainment system.
THE REFERENCES AND THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 22—28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Chai et al. (US 2012/0060176 Al; published
Mar. 8, 2012) and Gilson et al. (US 2013/0219417 Al; published Aug. 22,
2013). (See Non-Final Act. 3—10.)
2. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chai, Gilson, and Thomas et al. (US 2002/0059621 Al;
published May 16, 2002). (See Non-Final Act. 10—11.)
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, Appellants argue that
Gilson does not evidence that a component of the system of
Gilson is caused to execute an anticipated action wherein the
component of the system is readied to respond to an anticipated
change in a number of viewers in a viewing area associated with
the system, i.e., to ready the component of the system for a
probable, expected, or predicted and yet to occur change in a
number of viewers in a viewing area associated with the home
entertainment system, as claimed.
(App. Br. 6—7 (emphases omitted).) Appellants additionally argue that “it
would not be rational to conclude that one of skill in the art would use this
element from Gilson ... to present content prior to user selection and
3
Appeal 2016-000206
Application 13/758,307
thereby arrive at the invention claimed” because “the relied upon disclosure
in Gilson — namely when the user falls asleep the system goes into a
hibernate mode to conserve energy — would function to turn off the
presentation of content.” (App. Br. 7 (emphases omitted).)
The Examiner responds that “Gilson (paragraphs 74-75) discloses the
system detects when a person leaves a viewing area for a predetermined
threshold of time, and anticipates going into a rest state if the person[’]s
leave time exceeds a predetermined threshold,” in that “[w]hen a person
leaves a viewing area and is the only person detected in the viewing area, a
timer begins to countdown to the threshold time before changing the device
state . . . from a present state to a not present state or rest state.” (Ans. 12.)
Appellants reply that
this disclosure from Gilson merely evidences a system that
responds to the actual occurrence of a change in a number of
viewers in a viewing area, i.e., “when a person leaves a viewing
area ...” (Ex. Ans., pg. 12), and a system that readies itselffor
the number of viewers to remain changed, e.g., to turn off the
system if the viewer detected as leaving does not return, as
opposed to evidencing a system that responds to an event by
readying ready itself for a future, expected change in a number
of viewers as claimed.
(Reply Br. 4.)
We agree with the Examiner. The claim requires that “when the
received first event data is determined to be indicative of a preparatory
event[,] causing an anticipatory action to be executed by [a component
device] ... to transition [the component device]. . . from a first state to a
second state in which [the component device] ... is readied to respond to . . .
an anticipated change in a number of viewers in a viewing area associated
with the home entertainment system.” Paragraphs 74 and 75 of Gilson
4
Appeal 2016-000206
Application 13/758,307
describe how “when the user leaves the room for a predetermined or user
specific period of time, the display device 121 and/or user device 124 can be
caused to enter an ‘off state or ‘hibernate’ state, conserving energy.”
Gilson thus teaches receiving event data indicative of a preparatory event
(data showing the user leaving the room) and transitions a device from a first
state (normal viewing) to a second state (preparing to hibernate or shut
down) in which the device is readied to respond to an anticipated change in a
number of viewers (from one to zero) by turning off. We find Appellants’
argument unpersuasive because Gilson teaches that the one viewer initially
leaving the room may not be indicative of a change (because the user might
quickly return), but that the system readies itself for the viewer to not return,
and, if the user does not return within the predetermined period of time, the
number of viewers has then changed to zero.
Appellants also challenge the Examiner’s stated motivation to
combine—to produce “a predictable result wherein presented content is
controlled by detection of the user prior to receiving user selection” (Ans.
4)—on the grounds that Gilson’s hibernate mode “would function to turn off
the presentation of content” and “it would not be rational to conclude that
one of skill in the art would use this element from Gilson if one . . . wanted
to present content prior to user selection.” (App. Br. 7 (emphases omitted).)
We find this argument unpersuasive because a system can be a system for
presenting content even though it has a hibernate mode.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, the Examiner found that “Gilson (paragraph 75)
discloses that when the system detects a person leaving a viewing area a
5
Appeal 2016-000206
Application 13/758,307
countdown begins before transitioning to a hibernate state to conserve
energy from an active mode to an inactive mode[,] [b]ut if a person doesn’t
leave the viewing area for the predetermined threshold of time, the system
continues normal operation until the next time when viewers are not detected
in the viewing area.” (Ans. 13.) Appellants reply that “this disclosure, at
best, evidences a system that readies itself for a previously detected change
in a number of viewers to remain unchanged.” (Reply Br. 5 (emphasis
omitted).)
We agree with the Examiner that Gilson teaches the system being “no
longer readied to respond to the anticipated event” if the user returns (i.e.,
the countdown is aborted) and, therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 4.
Claim 5
Appellants argue that “it cannot... be concluded that Chai discloses
or suggests a system determining if an anticipatory event has occurred as
recited in claim 5.” (App. Br. 11.) Appellants further argue that
the rejection of the claim fails to present any reasoning as to how
or why someone of skill in the art would further modify the relied
upon combined elements of Chai and Gilson — wherein the relied
upon element of Gilson is a preparatory event of a user falling
asleep and the anticipated event is a user waking up and the relied
upon disclosure in Chai is directed to pausing content or present
a menu — to arrive at the invention recited in claim 5 which is
directed to transitioning a device to state in which it is no longer
readied to respond to that anticipated event (which it is again
noted in the rejection of claim 1 was a user “waking up”).
(Id. (emphasis omitted).)
The Examiner responds with reference to Chai’s Figures 3—5 and
paragraphs 41, 42, and 61—12, said to show that “the system detects viewer
change [and] either pauses the content from a play state, or presents the
6
Appeal 2016-000206
Application 13/758,307
identified user with an appropriate menu of selectable content items.” (See
Ans. 5 (emphasis omitted); see id. at 13—14.) We fail to see, however, how
the cited description of pausing the system or presenting a list of content
might teach or suggest “determining if the anticipated event [the viewer not
returning] occurs and when the anticipated event is determined to have
occurred . . . transition[ing] from the second state into either the first state or
a third state in both of which the at least one of the plurality of component
devices of the home entertainment system is no longer readied to respond to
the anticipated event.”
For this reason, we do not sustain the Section 103(a) rejection of
claim 5, or the Section 103(a) rejections of claims 7 and 8, which depend
from and include all of the limitations of claim 5.
Claim 22
Regarding independent claim 22, the Examiner cites Figures 2—5 and
7 and paragraphs 74 and 75 of Gilson as teaching or suggesting that “when
the received event data is determined to be indicative of a preparatory event
causing a first anticipatory action to be executed by a controlling device . . .
to transition the controlling device from a first state to a second state in
which [it] is readied to respond to ... an anticipated user interaction with
controlling device,” explaining that Gilson “detects the status of the user
viewing the device, wherein when the user falls asleep the system goes into
an hibernate mode to conserve energy, and exits this state when the user is
detected awake.” (Ans. 7 (emphasis omitted).)
Appellants argue that
causing a display device 121 and/or media rendering device 124
to go into a hibernate mode when it is detected that a user has
fallen asleep ... and causing the display device 121 and/or media
7
Appeal 2016-000206
Application 13/758,307
rendering device 124 to exit the hibernate mode when that same
user is detected to later awaken . . . does not evidence that a
controlling device of the system of Gilson is caused to transition
to a state in which the controlling device of the system is readied
to respond to an anticipated user interaction with the controlling
device upon the occurrence of the preparatory event as claimed.
(App. Br. 12 (emphases omitted).) Appellants further argue that
the relied upon disclosure in Gilson — namely when the user falls
asleep the system goes into a hibernate mode to conserve energy
— would function to turn off the presentation of content and has
nothing to do with placing a remote control into a readied state,
it is submitted that it would not be rational to conclude that one
of skill in the art would use this element from Gilson if one of
skill in the art wanted to ready a controlling device for activity —
which obviously requires energy — prior to user selection as
asserted.
(App. Br. 13 (emphases omitted).)
We agree with the Examiner that Gilson does teach or suggest
determining if the received event data is indicative of a preparatory event
and, if so, readying a controlling device to respond to the user interaction. In
particular, the teaching that “when a sleeping user awakens, the display
device 121 and/or user device 124 can be caused to exit a sleep state”
(Gilson 175) would be understood by one of skill in the art to mean that the
system monitors the sleeping user to see if he or she is waking (thus,
receiving event data indicative of a preparatory event) and, if so, causing the
device to exit the sleep state (thereby readying a controlling device to
respond user interaction). Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive because
they focus on the user falling asleep and do not address the Examiner’s
findings about the user awakening.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 22.
8
Appeal 2016-000206
Application 13/758,307
Claim 23
Claim 23 depends from claim 22 and adds that “the first state from
which the controlling device is transitioned is a quiescent operating state of
the controlling device.” The Examiner finds that Chai teaches changing a
device “[from] an inactive mode to an active mode in anticipation of user
selection of content.” (Ans. 15.)
Appellants argue that “as it has been acknowledged that Chai does not
disclose causing a system to be readied for an anticipatory event by
performing an anticipatory action in response to a detected preparatory
event, it cannot now be concluded that Chai discloses or suggests a remote
control being exited from a quiescent operating state in response to a
detection of a preparatory event to thereby place the remote control into a
state in which it is readied for an anticipatory event as is recited in claim
23.” (App. Br. 14.)
We agree with the Examiner that the cited portion of Chai is sufficient
to teach or suggest transitioning from a quiescent operating state,
particularly given that “quiescent” is not defined in the Specification and
ordinarily means “marked by inactivity or repose,”3 which is essentially the
same as Chai’s “inactive” mode and Gilson’s “sleep state.”
We accordingly sustain the rejection of claim 23.
3 See, e.g., http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quiescent (visited
Nov. 28,2016).
9
Appeal 2016-000206
Application 13/758,307
Claim 25
Claim 25 is similar to claim 4, adding to claim 22 the step of
“determining if the anticipated event occurs and, when the anticipated event
is determined to have not occurred within a predetermined period of time
causing a restorative action to be executed . . . whereupon the controlling
device is transitioned from the second state into the first state in which the
controlling device is no longer readied to respond to the anticipated event.”
In the Examiner’s analysis of claim 22, the anticipated event is the
viewer waking up. Unlike the situation in which a user leaves the room,
however, Gilson’s description of a user waking does not include a
restorative action, such as aborting a hibernation countdown, and we fail to
see how or why one would be used, as there is nothing to abort once the
person wakes and the controlling device exits the sleep state. We therefore
decline to sustain the rejection of claim 25.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 22—24, and 26—28 are affirmed.4
The rejections of claims 5, 7, 8, and 25 are reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
4 As Appellants offer no separate argument for claim 9, our decision on
claim 1 is determinative as to the rejection of that claim. As Appellants
offer no separate arguments for claims 24, 26, 27, and 28, our decision on
claim 22 is determinative as to the rejection of those claims.
10